2008-10-06_Chris Yuen_v_Board_of_Appeals_and_Edmund_Jin_and_Eva_Lu_-_Answering brief-Civil_No_07-1-261K

Home

} b \ 1 Revised Proposed COL No. 7 (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 686) was deleted by the Board because it found that there was no FOF or COL indicating`that the isohyet lines are not sufficiently specific or accurate to be used as a sole source of a regulatory standard" (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 686.) Revised Proposed COL No. 8 (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 686) was deleted by the Board because of the reference to comparable rain gauges requires that other rain gauges besides the one used also be comparable. The Board found that"[i]t is quite possible that the Director finds that this is the only comparable rain gauge" (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 686.) Excerpt 4 above, was never considered by the Board in its FOF, COL and Decision and Order and was not the basis for the Director's decision denying the Water Variance application. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 555, 686, 688-706.) Furthermore, Jin and Lu failed to provide any rainfall records or any other evidence to show that they meet the rainfall requirement of Rule 22-4 when they submitted their Water Variance application for consideration by the Director. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 84-90.) Rule 22-4 provides methods for applicants to show that they meet the rainfall requirement provided in Rule 22-4,but it does not prohibit other methods of showing that they meet the rainfall requirement. (SR:CV07-1-261K T001 at 47.) While Jin and Lifs expert witness provided criteria for catchment systems in general, he did not provide evidence that the Property meets the rainfall requirement provided in Rule 22-4. (R:CV07-1- 261K Doc. 004 at 513-514, 516, 519; Doc. 021 at 901-902.) Based on the foregoing, the Circuit Courfs COL No. 13 is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, the Circuit Court did not err in concluding in its COL No. 13 that Rule 22-4 is valid and enforceable and the Director did not depart from Rule 22-4 in contravention of the 22